104 Responses to Everyone knows

Dalrock, I like the compare and contrast format. Short and sharp!
How about the following for the bottom right cell, “Children suffer more when their father brings new girlfriends home than when their mother brings new boyfriends home.”

Whenever I hear “everybody knows,” “it goes without saying,” or simpler qualifiers like “most” and “almost always,” my BS detector starts clanging and it’s a cue for me to start asking detailed questions about the numbers and facts behind the assertion that was just made. (I am an attorney; a mean one).

Attempting to claim the backing of consensus is what people do to hide weak facts or avoid facing unpleasant truths. “Most marriages end in divorce” is what pro-promiscuity folks and anti-marriage feminists say to cover up the fact that a supermajority – between 65 and 70% of those who do get married – make their first and only marriage work well enough, while a minority get married and divorced repeatedly, running up the number of marriages that fail. “Everybody cheats on their spouse” is what cheaters say, but most polling says the numbers are actually pretty low, in the low double digits. “10% of the population is gay” is what the 1-3% of the population that is gay says in an attempt to generate consensus for pro-gay political positions.

We all tell ourselves pretty little lies by way of comfort and justification, and nobody works harder to maintain that cushion of deceit than those who know they are wrong.

Had a water coller chat this morning about the Chik Fil A situation, and I was pointing out that the church is wrong on priority, ignoring marriage, which was actually what the guy said in the first place, even his remark was more about divorce than gay marriage. Anyway as I explained to the guy here about women filing divorce etc he said oh no no women he knows feel that way. I asked him to test it, ask them if they favor tightening divorce laws, they will say NO….and they will regurgitate the table you placed above.

Children suffer more when their father brings new girlfriends home than when their mother brings new boyfriends home.”
———————————————————————-
Well, this depends dont you know on the thickness of the bedroom walls. True story I read that a man was trying to get his kids away from his ex because she was bringing men to the apartment and banging them. The court had someone check the sound transmission from bedroom to bedroom as a criteria they used, and they ruled she could keep the kids but had to move or otherwise separate her bedroom from theirs by more than a common wall

The last one is particularly upsetting to me. I have heard a real, live, actual woman say this to me when I still worked in the public school system. Her son was falling apart and failing school and still completely distraught about his parents’ divorce the previous year. The woman sat in an IEP meeting in front of the special ed team and justified her divorce by saying that someday her kids would be grown up and then she’d be left in an unhappy marriage. We hadn’t even asked her to discuss it, but even then I thought, “Couldn’t you have at least waited to get divorced until the kids were grown up?”

Feminism told women that they were being traitors to the feminine cause and wasting their lives and talents if they were SAHMs.

Feminism lied to women that they could have it all and that if their current husband wasn’t attractive; then another, wealthier, more attractive man was waiting just around the corner to offer marriage.

Feminism lied to women than serial monogamy is just as moral as marriage.

Feminism lied to women that they would be very bit as attractive to men at age 50 with HPV and after 20 sex partners as they were as 18 year old disease free virgins.

And women believed the lies. Why? Because it tickled their ears. Because it was what they wanted to hear. Because it was easy and simple. Because they knew a second cousin’s friend’s mom who got to do all these things.

Ugh, I wish I could note who said it recently to give full credit for the wisdom, but feminism is more about female contentedness than anything else. Feminism makes women unhappy because they used to tryo to make men happy, now they try to make women happy (self included). They can’t.

Second-shelving the children is just another manifestation of female contentedness as first priority.

What is so sad about the mother I used in the above example is that I doubt she would consider herself a feminist. Most women don’t self-identify with a bunch of hairy, gas-bag Duke University students. Yet we’re so saturated by the pernicious effects of it that the average woman on the street has become too warped to put the needs of her children before her own preferences.

Were women always this bad but we just don’t know it because they were pedestalized to the extent that we now believe women in the past were really good, selfless mothers? Or are modern women really losing one of their most basic functions, the ability to nurture? It breaks my heart.

Without loving male guidance, Women are easily deceived. Emotions just do not cut it as proper tools for decision-making. Individual men use logic, and it works. So, while it is true that Feminism lied to women, the real cause of women’s problems is rebellion against men. Feminism is just an expression of the feminine rebellion, in this age.

A very real deception is that Feminism can provide for women as individual men used to. I think of the founding statement: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. This statement mimics logic, but it is not logical. At first glance it appears to be in the form of analogy. A is to B as C is to D. The problem is that analogy (a male tool of logic used in decision making) is only useful in establishing positive relationships between ideas. The Fish/Bicycle example establishes a negative relationship, and is therefore a bad analogy. For this reason, the Fish/Bicycle is not useful in establishing a truth or central doctrine, nor is it able to support the weight of even the lightest decision.

TLDR; While it is true that a fish does not need a bicycle, that relationship is not exclusive (positive) in that it is no different from the relationship between a fish and: a rake, a goat, or a television, etc including infinitude … Feminism mimics male logic to women, but does so poorly. As a man, this would be flattering if it were not so dangerous.

@sunshinemary: Were women always this bad but we just don’t know it because they were pedestalized to the extent that we now believe women in the past were really good, selfless mothers? Or are modern women really losing one of their most basic functions, the ability to nurture? It breaks my heart.

It depends what you mean by bad. Internally, as a person, I don’t think much has changed. It’s still the same humans, with the same flaws. What has changed is education and mores. Women were being brought up with the idea that they should give their lives for their children, while men that they should give their lives for their children and their wives. Selflessness was an integral part of the way people thought and behaved. Now, we have done a complete 180 on this issue and everything is about me, my pleasure, my life, my “realization as a person”. The only thing left is the discourse to men they should sacrifice themselves for their families, so most men are still behaving selflessly. But mothers… they’ll sometimes tell their kids they were a mistake, that had they known what it would be like, they probably wouldn’t have had them, because they sacrificed too much.

Marriage is silly. You want to talk about archaic! I have no interest in it.

Some things in life are great “idiot tests” – just throw it out there and let people show you their true colors. The doublethink highlighted by Dalrock is a wonderful example – if you hear this stuff coming out of both side of someone’s mouth, you know you can stick a pencil in one of their ears and pull it out the other.

Another example, I think Ayn Rand is (was) a longwinded bore who didn’t know when to put the pen down when crafting her idealistic heros…I also think she’s a great loser detector to see if I’m dealing with a dismissive, pack-following leech: “Everybody knows, and it goes without saying, that Rand was evil and we all have to make greater contributions to society like in Europe!” Just mention you like Atlas Mugged and soon you’ll know if the person across from you wants to give you the fuzzy end of the lollipop come tax day.

I feel we are well into an era of social and individual depravity that is epic.
I’ve been a street cop for 30+ years in a major city. Every year people get worse, acts of kindness fewer and words like “shocking” and “unbelievable” have lost their impact. There simply aren’t words left to describe the vicious, nasty, rotten things people do to each other, and many times there is no evident motive either (Colorado movie shooting). We had a case where a thug shot and killed an innocent third party driving next to him on a busy street…”just because”. There is a youtube clip of some A-holes stealing an elderly womans’ walker, just because!
I was at a street festival over the weekend and saw some drunken assclown go around the bank of port-a-potties and piss on a nearby garage…WTF!?!?!
An apartment complex manager called to complain about people crapping on stairs in his buildings…really!
Self centered women, cads, sluts, whoever, are just reflections of the rot in the entire social fabric.
I am ashamed to admit this, but when I hear of so-n-so being pregnant, I’m actually sad. The thought of bringing an infant into the current world is not a happy thought for me, and I love kids.
There is a minister named John McArthur who delivered a sermon entitled ” When God Abandons A Nation” linked below, well worth a view.http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-314 – 129k
The real question, can things be turned around?
I don’t know.

Buck – I don’t feel sad when someone is pregnant IF they are in a Biblical marriage and both spouses are fully committed to the ideal. That actually gives me hope. Also, thanks for the link; I will view it.

zykosm: “Selflessness was an integral part of the way people thought and behaved. Now, we have done a complete 180 on this issue and everything is about me, my pleasure, my life, my “realization as a person”.”

Even yogis who seek self realization realize that they are dependant of others and ultimately of God. Therefor the householder is held in high regard by the sannyasins, and householder yogis give priority to their householder duties before their spiritual practice with the aim of integrating doing their duties into a spiritual practice. Once the oldest son can take over his duties the householder yogi can dedicate more time and energy into his practice.

Women voting ruins a culture because no society has adequately created a government structure which smartly and adequately restricts the power of female voting trends. Most suffrage supporters are foolhardy (I’m being kind) in believing that the initial democratic structure created for men will be able to withstand a women’s motives, temperament, and base drives without destroying a country.

Women as a whole will choose the feeling of safety over freedom.
Women as a whole will choose bigger government over smaller government.
Women as a whole will choose to have others pay for what they want.

My squeeze used to be a clerk for a state judge while in school. From him, I became fairly familiar with family court horror stories. How is it “equitable distribution” of assets as in Texas when one party (the woman, usually, in this scenario) cheats for years and then the primary breadwinner (the man, usually) has to split half the community property with her? Oh. Right. “Child support, custody, and the family court are unbiased and solely about the best interest of the child.” Dalrock hammers it in for a Touchdown. Stay childfree, fellas.

“I thought objectivism was some teenage fantasy political ideology like in comic books. Great to feed the beast of the rebellious, privileged youth until they grow up.”

Unvarnished objectivism struck me as being for the uncool, twitchy kids looking to break from the equally moronic vast herds of socialists they breed on non-STEM campuses these days who grow up believing the left-wing shills on Yahoo.com. The “I exist in a vaccuum and need no one for nothing!” angle is appealing to them, especially when set to a 11/7 time signature. Nuance is not a strong suit for alotta college-aged people.

My favorite anti-Rand quote is Krugman’s zinger:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

This peculiar fascination internet anglos have with science degrees is always entertaining, as if your american institutions allow any innovation at all anymore. Were it true, my home would not have the hadron, yours would.

Anglo americans really haven’t yet faced the fact that they are already obsolete, an endangered species. Your institutions and ‘culture’ have made it so. The weak, wimp, middle class anglo male has receded into a cocoon awaiting his extinction while his white middle class women whore themselves for change to whatever willing penis appears. All to get back at an ancestor long dead, and its too much of a hassle to travel to his grave to spit on it I assume.

Growing up hating your ancestors has destroyed you, I regret that your infestation has spread across the world into other, more durable societies.

Deti referenced “serial monogamy.” I think we need to rename this term to reflect reality (plus it’s a really good reframe). Sociobiologically, monogamy means one mate for life. Serial monogamy is NOT monogamy, and it’s time we started pointing that out. This should rightly be called “serial polygamy.” So if someone says female’s tendency is toward serial monogamy, well, it has that word “monogamy” in there so it sounds kind of good. If instead we say female’s tendency is toward serial polygamy, well, all the sudden that doesn’t sound so good to the average person (plus it more accurately reflects reality)

yaboyThis peculiar fascination internet anglos have with science degrees is always entertaining, as if your american institutions allow any innovation at all anymore. Were it true, my home would not have the hadron, yours would.

Don’t you have someplace else to troll? Maybe in some other locale with no quarks?

I’m sorry your societies sad and pathetic decline cannot be identified except through a ‘troll’ but fact is fact. Anglo Americans will sooner or later realize their society is already dead.

Consumer goods and pharmaceuticals, that is the innovation america is ‘gifting’ the world these days. It needs to import its scientists like a lamprey on the back of the rest of the world only because they are cheaper.

It may hurt your delicate sensibilities to not be told in political speech how weak of a society you have become, but that is not my problem.

Sorry but American Anglo society is far from dead. I mean you’re writing in English rrrright? Ya see the portion of American Anglo culture that is truly going away actually benefited folks like you. Be sad for yourself. Now instead of being self determined you are just cheap sweat shop labor (even if it is engineers), your women are internet whores/mail order brides, and if your leaders step out of line we bring in the military. Do I wish it were different? Yup. But let’s not forget which country is the pimp and which countries are the whores. Ok?

So where are you from, yaboy? Europe is is much worse shape fiscally and demographically. The entire Eurozone is rarely more than a few bad days away from coming apart at the seams, held together only by the ever-more-desperate efforts of badly outclassed Brussels bureaucrats. China is about to explode history’s largest asset bubble onto an inverting population pyramid. Japan’s lost decade is now pushing 25 years old.

South America? The Middle East? Africa? Please.

Anglo-American culture may be decadent and depraved, but look at the competition.

yaboy is fun! If you get really close to the screen when reading his/her posts, like I do, you can actually smell the ditchweed. One thing about American society: it sure gives job security to its doomsayers.

Living in Southern California as a single man with a decent wage, I often go out for lunch. I have no expenses, so it doesn’t hurt me much.

When I visit Manhattan Beach for lunch in the summer months, I am OFTEN exposed to entire restaurants filled with stay-at-home moms taking 2-4 kids out to the same restaurants I pay for.

I cannot help but stare and wonder just how crazy their home finances must be if the mommies of the house do this regularly (which they seem to do). Certainly their husbands earn more than I do. It’s just stunning to me that this is the meal solution the mother picks for so many children, rather than a few slices of bread and some lunchmeat. Yes, lets not save that money away for college and make a cheaper meal, lets make things easier for mom.

Anyway, that’s somewhat irrelevant to the discussion/post, this blog just reminded me of it when I read it today.

Sociobiologically, monogamy means one mate for life. Serial monogamy is NOT monogamy, and it’s time we started pointing that out.

Good point. “Polygamy” connotes simultaneous partners though, at least to me, making “serial polygamy” sound self contradictory. “Parallel fornication” as the male preferred form of promiscuity vs “serial fornication” for the female seem ok to me, but I have nerdtastic qualities and they might not work for a general audience reframe.

When it comes to LTRs, if it isn’t for life it is just good old fashioned fornication. Serialized sluttery

Jeremy; “It’s just stunning to me that this is the meal solution the mother picks for so many children, rather than a few slices of bread and some lunchmeat. Yes, lets not save that money away for college and make a cheaper meal, lets make things easier for mom.”

Truth be told, women are all about spending money, not saving it (given the option).

JeremyI cannot help but stare and wonder just how crazy their home finances must be if the mommies of the house do this regularly (which they seem to do).

Modern women don’t cook. They microwave things, they reheat leftover takeout, but they do not cook. Plus, of course, Everyone Else Is Doing It. Women don’t like to be too different from other women – enough different, but not too different. Staying home and making sandwiches? Too 1950’s! A woman who does that too many times will surely wind up barefoot and chained to a stove….

The slow failure of the debt berg will affect even the beach towns in SoCal someday. Last month I was in a mountain resort town, looking forward to dinner at a pretty good place – it was closed. The steak house down the block was closed. There were some midrange eating places still open, but the upscale, non-chain ones were gone. This is a non-famous, middle class resort, and the lesson I see is the customers are pinching their pennies a bit – they still go out on Friday, but it is to local chains that are slightly upscale versions of Applebees. Not the high end steak house, not the sorta-kinda Continental place. I expect this to slowly spread into more fashionable areas – eating is a necessity, but paying someone to cook for you is a luxury.

When I talk with students, I suggest to them that the “hospitality and tourism” career path may not be so good in the future, whereas medical tracks, technical tracks and so forth might be better.

Modern women don’t cook. They microwave things, they reheat leftover takeout, but they do not cook. Plus, of course, Everyone Else Is Doing It. Women don’t like to be too different from other women – enough different, but not too different. Staying home and making sandwiches? Too 1950′s! A woman who does that too many times will surely wind up barefoot and chained to a stove….

Now that is very sad. It’s much healthier and cheaper to prepare food at home, plus it is very enjoyable to cook together as a family. My daughters love to work in the kitchen and there is no restaurant food that is nicer than what we had today for lunch – homemade sourdough bread with fresh basil and tomatoes from the garden.

“Dalrock, I like the compare and contrast format. Short and sharp!
How about the following for the bottom right cell, “Children suffer more when their father brings new girlfriends home than when their mother brings new boyfriends home.”

They do? Statistics bear out that most child abuse is at the hands of men that are not biological fathers of the children i.e. the single moms’ boyfriends. I do agree though that single parents of either sex should not be dating, its unstabalizing for the kids.

Hey, who was it here that said keeping weight down, keeping hair long and wearing makeup are 3 basics must-dos for wives? I disagreed with the makeup part because in my experience (me, my buddies, other men I’ve read or heard from) don’t like makeup but it more to it than just looking fake. The makeup industry is predicated on cruelty, animal testing, and the chemicals are harsh, dangerous and unhealthy. Of course now there are organic and cruelty free cosmetic lines but they are outrageously expensive.

My sisters wore tons of makeup in their teens and as soon as they started was when they started to break out with acne, duh. Then they’d have to buy more chemical laden, cruelty dependent skin products to get rid of that. Skin is the largest organ of the body and its meant to breathe.

“Modern women don’t cook. They microwave things, they reheat leftover takeout, but they do not cook. Plus, of course, Everyone Else Is Doing It. Women don’t like to be too different from other women – enough different, but not too different. Staying home and making sandwiches? Too 1950′s! A woman who does that too many times will surely wind up barefoot and chained to a stove”

What’s the point in a single parent dating, exactly? All their extra time should be spent with their kids.

Extra time? What’s that? Seriously though, most single parents (in Canada at least) have joint custody, so that leaves time for dating.

What about seeing friends? Would you say that’s a no go too, since he or she should spend every free moment with the kids? What’s the point in a single parent having friends? All their extra time should be spent with their kids.

What you are saying sounds ridiculous, even to me, and I didn’t have a single night out in over three years after my marriage ended, much less a date. It’s easy to talk, so be careful what you say.

“capitalism is dynamic and causes rapid turnover in the ranks of who is at the top, while socialism/autocracy creates a static elite, so it is easy for women to decide who to get pregnant with, since there is not a lot of turnover in the status hierarchy.”

I’m not so sure women ever had a problem figuring out who to get pregnant with, and hypergamy ensures that if things change she can move on and up. Might be more a cause of hypergamy than an effect, really.

I generally find that the status hierarchy women care about is status relative to other women. Obviously, one way of gaining status is having a high status man, but he’s a means, not an end. That is still an option for the same women it always has been.

The appeal of the welfare feminist state is that there are now many more means to achieve status relative to other women, this time by assuming directly the status by getting the jobs, degrees, etc., herself that she might have otherwise gotten indirectly by being with a man of that status. In addition, for many generations the decision as to who to get pregnant by has become increasingly less important, to the point where it is irrelevant to some women, or even a status enhancer to be pregnant without a man to others.

With the functional need for a man largely done away with by big daddy government, the relationship value of a man can now be entirely about the status he provides with respect to other women. This further accelerates hypergamy, as it is all about status, there are no brakes at all due to the practicalities of life.

I have two rules with respect to the modern western woman I use to interpret their behaviour:

Rule 1: No matter what they say, it is always about the women.

Rule 2: When in doubt, refer to rule 1.

Anything to do with men is purely an incendental by-product, and men, betas more now than ever, disposable.

@HARP4Y“Statistics bear out that most child abuse is at the hands of men that are not biological fathers of the children i.e. the single moms’ boyfriends.”

Much abuse is at the hands of mothers, yet mothers are usually awarded custody in divorce even though there is more abuse by mothers than fathers. Of course this inconvenient truth is disregarded, underreported and not adequately statistically tracked. Are you claiming that non-biological men do more abuse than mothers? You best provide some real support for your statement (and realize that Dalrock is a master finding real statistics).

Are you paid by an alphabet agency to sow discord and obfuscate truth? (The last time I alluded to this in regards to a commenter they just disappeared.)

everyone knows men are equal to women.
everyone also knows men should not approach/pursue/provide/engage/entertain/charm/surprise the woman, for these things will naturally be engendered through egalitarian osmosis as dictated by the natural laws of cultural marxism.
everyone also knows women should hypercharge their careers so they can compete with men, know lots about sports so they can be one of the guys, lose their manners and chew gum loudly while burping and farting casually and speak with no filters so that they are one of the boys, and ride the carousel and enjoy the fruits of their youth until they hit the wall and just trade down for a younger youthful nice guy.

Well, this depends dont you know on the thickness of the bedroom walls.

This reminds me of Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl, where the single mom asks her daughter if she ever felt ashamed because of the men she was bringing home, and the little girl said like “Why should I feel ashamed? I was in the next room.”
(Don’t watch the movie. It’s terribly unfunny. Only had that one line.)

Now, we have done a complete 180 on this issue and everything is about me, my pleasure, my life, my “realization as a person”.

What you mean is that after you run out of threats, babbling insanely about the “collective good” doesn’t work any more. That’s right. Where was the Collective Good in the BP oil disaster? In the All Jobs Must Go To China movement? In the Wall Street bailout?

But, OH NOOOOS! You need someone to do something you can’t get them to do by putting a gun to their head. So you switch to your moral babble and then they totally ignore you.

@Paul
“I’m not so sure women ever had a problem figuring out who to get pregnant with, and hypergamy ensures that if things change she can move on and up. Might be more a cause of hypergamy than an effect, really.
I generally find that the status hierarchy women care about is status relative to other women. Obviously, one way of gaining status is having a high status man, but he’s a means, not an end. That is still an option for the same women it always has been.”

Pretty good analysis, but you are still pedestalizing women. Replace status with power and you are onto something. Status is but a type of power after all. Take sluts for example. Sluts have power, but no status. Thus we see the enormous feminist push for “sex positive” attitudes. In a culture without the word “skank”, a woman gets the sex power of having a vagina with the bonus power of being stigma free. Add a feminist legal framework and the slut then also gains the power of aborting a pregnancy for convenience, the power of having a man/state pay for raising her baby, and the power of riding the carousel in her 20’s and then having a beta safety net when she hits the wall.

I have two rules with respect to the modern western woman I use to interpret their behavior:

Rule 1: No matter what they say, it is always about the women’s POWER.
Rule 2: When in doubt, refer to rule 1.

White civilization is a massive failure. So too, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, Darwin, and Keats. Why? Because the civilization they spawned could not reproduce. It could not create men who reliably got women aroused when they were capable of having kids.

Meanwhile, Cam’ron, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, and Jay Z will live forever. Because their culture reproduces. By making women aroused. It does not matter if a hundred years from now everyone lives in a mud shack looking at the ruins of the Empire State Building or Golden Gate bridge wondering how it was ever built. Shawn Kemp has about 13-15 kids, and Karl Malone at least seven known.

Technology is a dead end, because it only produces nerdy guys who have figured out how to create clean drinking water, so kids don’t die of dysentery by age two. That doesn’t get women aroused (enough to have kids when fertile). Being a thug does.

Another thing to keep in mind is that reproduction and fitness aren’t things that happen in a single generation. Today’s feral females may have decided in aggregate that reproducing with bad boy alphas and spending their post-30’s as impoverished spinster single moms is the way to go. Or, possibly more accurately, they have been empowered by feminism to do so.

But until we see where that leaves their great-great-grandkids (if they produce any, as opposed to producing genetic blind alleys) it is a bit premature to declare reproductive victory on their behalf.

Aunt Giggles has published an article crazily applauding Roissy and spinning some shmaltzy shtick about nice guy betas finally getting into the (soiled) pants of used up tarts.

Didn’t she, like, hate on PUAs most rabidly…recently? So now Roissy, that evil, insensitive jerk, is back in HUS’ good graces. I call hamsterlympics on this one. Commenting is pointless as she just deleted a critique written by me. Lol. Doesn’t she realize how much she is embarassing herself? Or maybe she needs fresh ideas? It does seem to have gone a bit stale over there. Too many hamsters and manginae….not enough bold, critical thought.

We’ve discussed this (rather lightheartedly) in terms of religion on my blog, and someone recommended a book to me called Shall the religious inherit the earth?

Perhaps why so many of the Churchian proctors are pronuptualist (“Man up and marry the sluts”) and pronatalist is this exact thing. Maybe they blame reproduction rate on why Churchianity is dying a slow death?

Much of the growth has to do with the fact that more Amish children are staying with the religion and starting their own high-fertility families.

And I would say that for mainline Protestants, the opposite could be said:
Much of the decline has to do with the fact that more mainline Christian children are leaving the religion in young adulthood and not starting families or having only one or two children.

If anyone is interested, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has a chart showing number of children by religious tradition. For those who don’t know, 2.1 children per woman is considered replacement level.

And a word to any married silent female readers in the audience – you have probably been told your entire life that children will hold you back. You might think babies are a dreadful inconvenience. Don’t believe it. Babies are very nice once you get to know them.

I do not agree that Churchians tend to be pro-natalist. They are anti-abortion, which is not the same as pro-natalist. Churchianity reproduces by winning converts, just like atheists.

Disagree. I’m not speaking of anti-abortionism. If anything I’m speaking of children-focused things. There is definite pressure, either directly, or through social pressure both to marry and have children.

I stated that Churchianity is slowly dying. This is because of the reported numbers of “members” in different denominations along with churches. Both are trending steadily downwards. If you need anecdotal evidence, set foot inside a good variety of churches that are not seeker-sensitive or emerging church oriented. The super-majority of them will have an average age somewhere between 60 and 70. My thought was that the pressure on both marriage and children is coming from the leadership seeing these numbers and coming up with the incorrect conclusions. The problem they sense is indeed simple: The replacement rate is not matching up to the loss rate.

I see this in the focus that churches have, as well. One that I’m witness to decided to go to a child-centric focus, stating that the number one factor of bringing in people was to hook their children (of course you know this to be false). So they de-emphasized (read mostly eliminated) all Bible-teaching and activities for adults in favor of their children’s programs. They host after-school days and have extensive programs and efforts towards all those below the age of 18. They also favor different Christian academies as public school alternatives, putting money into running them. Much of this goes back to trying to compete with other churches in town.

Also, this is nothing different than the common seeker-sensitive situation. Needless to say, it was a good red pill in seeing how unwelcome I was in that place because I wasn’t married with children. Not in an overt way – no one come out and told me I was unwelcome. But the focus, the things being said, and so on sent that message loud and clear. They would argue that favoring these things would bring in children so they could educate them in the Lord and not have people “going out the back door” (their phrase). They would cite Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4 to Biblically justify what they are doing. The idea is not to “win converts” to Jesus (scant few of them really do any real evangelistic efforts (*) , just compete based on programs and facilities and draw people in that way), but to draw people in at their earliest ages and keep them tied into Churchianity as long as possible in hope of redrawing stable numbers.

Again, they don’t see the real reason why they’re losing both people and supportable churches. I could say much more on the topic of what seeker-sensitive churches do and why, but that’s enough to explain my position more thoroughly.

(*) – real evangelistic outreach efforts should not be confused with community outreach efforts. The latter are intended to draw people into looking at the facility and considering Jesus, but the gospel or the name of Jesus is never mentioned. These are usually in the form of public dinners, parties, and the like, all of which have nothing different about them than the world. They are “let’s do something and hope people like us” things.

OK, we’re talking about two different things:
1. age segregation in ministry
2. pronatalism – a response to God (not other people) by which married couples are open to receiving God’s blessing of human life (Psalm 127)

On age-segregation: I love the idea of family-integrated churches, but we don’t attend one. There simply aren’t that many of them among Protestants; of course all Catholic churches could be considered family-integrated. Also I think many CREC churches are F-I. Age-segregation has some serious drawbacks, but Protestants just seem to hate kids being in the services. And all the programs…yeah, it could be seen as salesmanship but I think it’s more about fitting in with the surrounding culture.

On pro-natalism – Governments encourage citizens to have more children in order to avoid demographic collapse; churches rarely do this in my experience, nor should they in my opinion. Pro-natalism as a Christian response to God’s love is different; the Bible tells us that children are a blessing and a reward. Why would we want to limit the rewards and blessings God wants to give us? Looking at the history of artificial contraception and abortion – who pushes it and why – makes it clear which side that comes from. I would prefer to be aligned with God and receive His blessings than be aligned with the satanic anti-natalist death cult. I don’t see Churchianity taking this on; they have nice children’s ministry areas in the back of the church and nothing to say about all the pill-popping ladies in the pews.

“The Mexicans deserve California, they won fair and square. They are mostly Catholic, have large families, the parents stay married, and they take care of their own.

Compare that scenario with the typical western Caucasian female: feminist, man hating, likely an abortion or two, rode the alpha carrousel in her youth, likely divorced or a single mom, STD’s, bad attitude, domineering, career (alpha male seeking) oriented, materialistic, do I need to go on !?

In other words so go the females in a culture so goes the culture and the land that supports it.

I’ve been lurking for the past couple of months and reading the discussions / debates / lozzloozzoloz. I’ve lost a decade because I’ve been fed the diet of a beta (with supplements from the Churchianity). Through this site (and many others), I’ve learnt a lot. I’ve gained more confidence as a man. It may take a while yet for me to turn into some alpha-beta hybrid, but this site has certainly got me started in this journey.

“The Mexicans deserve California, they won fair and square. They are mostly Catholic, have large families, the parents stay married, and they take care of their own.

I suspect that “Lysander Spooner” hasn’t been to southern California recently, if ever, doesn’t know any Mexicans, doesn’t know anyone who lives on the border, and therefore believes this romantic, almost Rousseauesque nonsense.

* The fastest growing churches in Mexico and other parts of Latin America are some version of evangelical. I have been told this by multiple people, Catholic, Protestant, agnostic, who have been to Mexico, Guatamala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama. Maybe Mexicans et al were mostly Catholic 30 years ago, but not now.

* There is a very bizarre strain within Mexican culture having to do with death. I believe it holds over from the ancient Indian cultures. Lately it is surfacing in the form of the Santa Muerte cult – “Saint Death”. It isn’t just the narcos who are buying Santa Muerte candles, statues, posters, etc. Call it what you will, I don’t see any easy way to connect an angelic-like figure in the shape of a skeleton with Catholic church. Do a search on “Santa Muerte”, see how many hits come back, and what worship involves. The Santa Muerte cult is pretty wide spread among the poorest Mexicans from what I can tell.

* Immigrants to the US, legal and illegal, tend to have more children in the first generation. Their children, however, tend to follow US norms and have fewer (0, 1, 2, at most 3) children. This tends to hold true across all cultures.

* Birth rates in Mexico are down, as is true across most of the world. The last time I looked into it, the estimated birth rate at the CIA fact book was 2.3 per woman. Replacement is 2.1, so Mexico is close to the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) level. Anecdotally, I have worked with Mexican nationals and all the professionals had at most two children. I have worked with Mexican graduate students who are from the middle class, and they all had at most one sibling. It will not be a surprise if Mexico follows Italy, Spain, Greece and other countries into sub-ZPG territory, either.

So I don’t agree with “Lysander Spooner”, because his claims do not match what I am told by reliable people, and what I see.

Oh, I forgot to mention: the number of single women with children in the Mexican-American and Mexican communities is growing. I know, through relatives, people who teach near the southern border. There are high schools with nurseries built on the site, so the teenaged mothers have a place to put their baby or infant while they go to class. These are schools with a large plurality of Mexican American and Mexican students. There are just as many single mothers with Spanish surnames as Anglo in these schools.

Divorce is not at all uncommon, among the under-30’s especially – I do not have numbers, but I do have personal anecdotes.

Example: One Mexican citizen graduate student I worked with was constantly fretting about her brother (her only sibling, btw), who was basically going through a standard divorce-theft scenario. He’d married a Mexican-American woman in the US and had a child with her. Sound familiar to anyone?

Example: I was at a meeting in which a Mexican citizen with a PhD in science (a college professor) was checking his email and texts regularly, in order to keep track of where his school aged daughter was. Why? Because it was his period to have custody of her, and he had to make sure that the people getting her to and from school didn’t mess up while he was out of town. Why? Because if they did, his ex wife would use it against him. He wanted to bring his daughter to the conference, but his ex wife absolutely refused to allow their child out of the country. Sound familiar to anyone?

Mexican citizens come in a variety of shapes, sizes and flavors, as well as religious beliefs and politics, but they do live in the same modern worlds as the rest of us.

Wait a minute, women used to love children? You mean like Medea? Or Hera? Or Phaedra? Note how the Romans qualified a good woman as a loyal obedient wife and mother, the converse is that many women weren’t. No dear Ladies and Gentlemen, it has been known since antiquity that women will just as easily use children as leverage, to get revenge, or abandon them. That is why the laws, culture, and custom constrained both men and women. Up until the 19th century that is when woman some how shifted to being the arbiter of virtue and goodness.

I like that!
That and your post #90.
There are several large families of Catholics nearby,and they are happy with lots of kids,and divorce seems to be rarer among them.
Also plenty of Amish nearby also,double for the.
There are pockets of normality left,thank God.
By way of returning the favor, I find myself looking for your comments.
They are often the brighter spots in the threads.
These large families tend to succeed because they have family to help them along in life.This cannot be overestimated in effect.
Having both mom and dad around for normal growth and siblings for support create confident young men and women who tend to succeed in life at a much greater rate in my estimation.
Their happiness in genuine and exits as a steady flow of life force.
No need to contrast with the professional isolationism of the ‘gender studies’ of the secular colleges.
Those folks are self sabotaging whilst believing them are empowering themselves.
Often not relizing it until too late in life.Creating the spinster/cat scenario.
As for the disenfranchised men from that causation,they are socially invisible.

I’ve got to say that I think that much of this discussion revolves around the following issues:

1 The churches are failing to disciple people to be Christian. Because of this, sin is running rampant through the churchian population, often because those who should be involved in church discipline are failing to even consider it for the (female) majority of their congregations, and are in fact teaching a false gospel.

2 The feminists have grounded their ideas in much of society so firmly that people refuse to consider them to be antithetical to Christian living.

3 People are either unable or too lazy to think their philosophies and beliefs through to a conclusion.

@MiGHOW
Oh my gosh, that link! Wow. The author oozes jealousy. Every Christian mother should read that website to her daughters and say, “Is this what you want?” And no woman anywhere should ever take any advice from any women on that website; they don’t respect a woman’s right to choose to have children at all. They are angry and bitter that they made choices that then precluded them from having children. I would feel sorry for them except for the fact that the article advocates for universal free daycare “like they have in Sweden” and posits that women are only faking wanting to be home with their children because they don’t have any other choice. She doesn’t tell you that women have no choice about returning to work in Sweden because their taxes are so high (to pay for all that “free” stuff) that no one can live on one income. It is clear that the author is so angry that other women have had children and are happily taking care of them that she wants to deconstruct society in order to force other women to join her in her own miserable circumstances.

The site seems to be UK orientated. I am also based in the UK. I think a lot of the unforeseen consequences of feminism such as a significant increase in women never married and childless will appear in the UK first. This type of website and group will seek to normalise the situation.

I actually think the comments on the site are quite pitiable and you have to genuinely feel for the women who couldn’t concieve through medical reasons. The level of hamsterisation for the others though is something to behold.